Common/Uncommon/Rare...

[the Jester]

I'm excluding classes that I really think should be multiclasses (e.g. swordmage) and those that are too niche or one-off to make it into the early game in my opinion (e.g. spellthief). Also those that, IMHO, existed just for the sake of existing or 'filling out the grid' (e.g. invoker).

Common: Cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard.

Uncommon: Barbarian, bard, druid, ranger, warlord

Rare: Assassin, monk, paladin, psionicist (or psion, or mentalist, or whatever we call it), shaman (or whatever we call our spirit guy), shapechanger (D&D has never had a dedicated shapechanging class but I think we need one- druid is too spread across different shticks), sorcerer, specialist wizards (necromancer, evoker, etc), warlock.

I'm sure I missed some, but that's my basic list.

 

[Ratskinner]

We've seen it bandied about that part of the class creation and breakdown is going to be dividing things, at least organizationally/mentally, into Common classes, Uncommon classes, and Rare classes.

I suspect we might see this applied to Races as well and could easily go to Backgrounds, at least, if not Specialties also...an "Alchemist" BG is/would/could be significantly more Rare than a "Soldier" or "Farmer" BG.
<snippage>

I think this is perhaps the most misunderstood thing that they ever said about 5e.

Monte: To start with we kind of shot at the moon, and said everything that's been in a Player's Handbook 1, we want to potentially have in our new player's book. That includes things like the warlock and the warlord from 4th edition, but also includes the classes from other editions like the ranger, the wizard, the cleric. Going along those lines we separated things along the lines of what's common or uncommon. So for example fighters, clerics, wizards and clerics might be commmon while warlocks, bards, and paladins fall into uncommon and something like the assassin might be rare. This helps DMs determine what options they want to run in their games as well.

Bruce: It also might be the case that some of the classes labeled rare might be a bit more complex or difficult to pick up, so players could also have a gauge with how they want to pick their classes.

Races, like classes will be sorted into common, uncommon, and rare: "We can be explicit in the rules about class and race availability. By tagging some races as common, others as uncommon, and others as rare, we can instruct players and DMs alike in how these options might fit into their settings. The core races, the common ones, might only include humans, dwarves, elves, and halflings since those races more or less appear in every D&D setting (yes, yes, kender are different from halflings—you’re welcome, Miranda). Uncommon races might include half-elves, half-orcs, high elves, and gnomes. And maybe the rare include dragonborn, drow, and tieflings. Separated in this way, a DM can tell players his or her game features only the common and uncommon races. Or, maybe the DM says only uncommon and rare races. A new DM might say just the common ones only! This method of sorting could also apply to classes so DMs looking to capture a particular tone and style can confidently and broadly select the options that most closely match his or her expectations and vision of fantasy most appropriate for his or her campaign." - Robert Schwalb

Common, Uncommon, and Rare were never intended to describe the classes or races as they appear within any given campaign, but to describe how typically they appear to D&D as a whole. I think was a very poorly chosen set of words. They might have been better served by calling them Basic, Expert, and Advanced, but... We haven't heard anything about this for a while now, so it might be a moot point.

 

[Lanefan]

3.) A way organize campaigns along certain "themes" of D&D based on edition (A Common Only D&D looks like basic; the core four classes and races. An Uncommon looks like AD&D with half-elves, druids, gnomes and bards. A Rare campaign looks like 3e or 4e with monks, sorcerers, tieflings and goliaths).

This would make so much sense, if they in fact did it; particularly as a vague guide for new players/DMs.

If this design idea really takes hold I can also see things like spells, feats and magic items going into a C/U/R framework. Spells would not really be able to work like this but feats might and magic items certainly could.

Lan-"fireball C/U/R settings: Cooked, Undercooked, and (medium) Rare"-efan

 

[steeldragons]

Hmmmm...

Maybe different elements of D&D (classes, races, magic items, specialties, heck even weapons, system styles, etc...) could all start being put on...

The CURVE!

Common/Uncommon/Rare/Very Rare/Extraordinary

That last one would be, essentially, "Unique" but "CURVU" just doesn't have the same hook.


--SD

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Hmmmm...

Maybe different elements of D&D (classes, races, magic items, specialties, heck even weapons, system styles, etc...) could all start being put on...

The CURVE!

Common/Uncommon/Rare/Very Rare/Extraordinary

That last one would be, essentially, "Unique" but "CURVU" just doesn't have the same hook.


--SD

Clever! Although, that is more levels that we need. I support the above suggestion of Basic, Advanced, and Expert. That would be a nice nod to the past.

Also, I think it would be useful to DMs. New DMs simply don't have the experience to understand the ramification of some classes, races, and magic items. Labeling them Advanced tells them to use with caution.